The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to force the state’s Medicaid program to pay for abortions.

The lawsuit contends that depriving women of abortion coverage violates state statute and the Maine Constitution.

Services offered by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, which has an office in the Clapp Building on Congress Street in Portland, above, include birth control, cancer screenings, breast health, abortions, and sexual health education and counseling. Whitney Hayward/Staff Photographer

The suit was filed in Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland against the Maine Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of three women’s health care providers.

Thirteen states have been forced by court order to pay for abortions for low-income women, as the ACLU of Maine is seeking, but attempts to use the courts to force public abortion funding have failed in numerous states.

Adrienne Bennett, spokeswoman for Gov. Paul LePage, called the lawsuit “nothing but a frivolous public relations stunt.”

“The facts of the matter are that the vast majority of states do not cover abortions with their Medicaid program, and the federal government prohibits the use of federal funding for abortions except in case of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger,” Bennett said.

Although the lawsuit doesn’t name the Republican governor as a defendant, a member of his Cabinet, DHHS Commissioner Mary Mayhew, is a defendant.

MaineCare, the state’s version of Medicaid, costs about $2.5 billion in state and federal funds annually, $750 million of which comes from the state General Fund, said DHHS spokesman John Martins.

Zachary Heiden, legal director of the ACLU of Maine, believes the lawsuit will be successful because similar suits have succeeded in states such as Massachusetts and Vermont that have constitutions similar to Maine’s.

“We should have done this years ago,” Heiden said of Tuesday’s lawsuit. “There are too many barriers for women of low income to get the care they need.”

The ACLU of Maine sued on behalf of three nonprofits that specialize in reproductive and sexual health care – Mabel Wadsworth Women’s Health Center, Maine Family Planning and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Combined, the three provide care to 21,500 Maine residents each year, more than half of whom qualify for low-income health coverage, the groups said in a written statement announcing the lawsuit. The suit was not prompted by a specific patient.

SEVENTEEN STATES PAY FOR COVERAGE

Federal legislation that went into effect in 1977, known as the Hyde Amendment, bars federal funds from being used for abortions unless the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest or the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. But the legislation allows states to pay for other abortions.

Four states – Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Washington – voluntarily provide abortion coverage to low-income women, and 13 states – Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and West Virginia – have been ordered by state courts to fund the coverage.

The 33 other states restrict state funding for abortions.

MaineCare provides coverage to women for pregnancy-related care if they choose to carry their pregnancy to term. The lawsuit contends that since the state funds one kind of health coverage for low-income women but doesn’t provide coverage for women having legal abortions, it discriminates against women who decide to have an abortion and violates an equal protection clause in the state constitution.

“Abortion is a protected right for all women, regardless of what type of insurance they have,” Heiden said. “This lawsuit aims to right the ship and to bring DHHS policy back in line with the Maine Constitution.”

The DHHS has not yet been served with the lawsuit.

Andrea Irwin, executive director of the Mabel Wadsworth center in Bangor, said many of the organization’s patients don’t have enough money to pay for abortion care, particularly women from rural areas who must travel for health care.

“As more Maine women and families experience poverty, with fewer safety net programs to support them, the need to act has become increasingly urgent. We can no longer accept a policy that treats the rights of women in Maine according to two different standards – whether you can afford to pay for your rights or not,” Irwin said in a joint statement issued by the ACLU of Maine.

Kate Brogan, vice president of public affairs at Maine Family Planning in Augusta, said in the statement that no one should be denied access to safe health care because of their income.

“When a person needs to end a pregnancy, it is essential that professional medical care is accessible without barriers,” Brogan said.

SUPPORT FOR ENDING A ‘WRONG’

Dr. Donna Burkett, medical director at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said a woman who finds out she is pregnant should not be forced to make a decision based on finances instead of one that weighs what’s best for her, her health and her family.

“When she decides it’s better to end her pregnancy, which could be due to health concerns, she needs to be able to use her Medicaid benefits to get the care she needs,” Burkett said in the statement. “All too often, we see a woman delay her decision, potentially jeopardizing her health, because she couldn’t afford to care for herself.”

Several Democratic state legislators supported the ACLU’s lawsuit against the state.

“The current situation means that not all women have equal access to the full slate of pregnancy-related services, including abortion,” Sen. Justin Alfond, the Democratic minority leader from Portland, said in a written statement. “It’s wrong that women covered by MaineCare have fewer options than women covered by private insurance. We don’t discriminate against low-income people in Maine.”

Sen. Dawn Hill, D-York, said a woman’s decision whether to have a child should be between her and her doctor, regardless of how much money she makes.

House Speaker Mark Eves, D-North Berwick, said in an email, “As legislators, we should not be blocking a woman’s access to health care as a result of her income or personal choices. All women should be guaranteed equal access to affordable health care services and the freedom to make their own choices for themselves and their families without interference.”

Republican legislative leaders declined to comment on the suit.

“It doesn’t look like a legislative matter, so we might be inclined to pass on it for now,” James Cyr, a spokesman for Senate President Michael Thibodeau, R-Winterport, said in an email.

Rob Poindexter, a spokesman for House Republicans, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

For those that choose “free” abortion as their preferred method of birth control , “free” permanent sterilization should be mandatory for both parties to the conception .

Jennifer P

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to kill children in the womb.

Hopefully, the next Congress and President will enact legislation forbidding taxpayer dollars from being used to take human life in the womb. Maybe as part of a full repeal of Obamacare and the creation of a free market health care system that will improve quality and drive down costs. And subsidies for those who need them.

harveyr1

The federal government can only make laws concerning federal tax dollars. There is already a law in place that says no federal tax dollars will be spent on abortion related services except when the mother’s life is at risk or in cases of incest or rape.

bootjack

Actually I see this as a win-win. The taxpayers don’t have to pay for 18 years of a welfare child as opposed to a relatively small amount for an abortion. And it keeps the libs fat and happy thinking they’ve actually accomplished something.

chickadee_crow

“When a person needs to end a pregnancy, it is essential that professional medical care is accessible without barriers,” Brogan said.

I really think there is a big problem in the confusion of “need” v want and the confusion of need v choice. “Need” is covered in the Federal Law, “rape, incest or Life threat”. Those are “needs” that don’t take income level into consideration. After that, I don’t see how a “Choice” is necessarily and across-the-board a need and especially one that has to bring the Public into it. “Adoption” is also a choice, but I don’t know of any Publicly funded Adoption Agencies that exist. (Perhaps they do exist). The Woman’s “choice” of what she did with her body (chose to have the baby and put it up for adoption) is not a “need”, either. “Abortion care”? as the Publicly funded “choice” is maybe actually the discriminatory element in and of itself. SCOTUS has decided when “Life” begins, but where is the consideration to “where and whether or not pregnancy begins?” And in the year 2015 is that not really a viable “choice” consideration, also? The Law already covers where pregnancy, effectively, “against one’s will” begins and can be dealt with. Providers, get your private funds and create a slush fund for paying for abortions that Women can’t afford and aren’t covered as a “need” and stop exploiting the issue and the Law and the Clients for your own gain. This issue has gone on way too long and taken away from way too many other “REAL” concerns, just like, and in the same way that Gun legislation has. Good for the ACLU for bringing it into the Court. The Maine Constitution doesn’t trump Federal Law, on a Federal issue, as far as I ever knew.

FreeMaine

Murder IS NOT healthcare!!

midcoast9999

totally false. the supreme court, stated abortion is not murder. it is a right until the fetus if viable. there was no determination about ‘human life’. a drop of your blood is life and would probably test as ‘human’ but would NOT be viable (able to survive by itself)
learn the science BEFORE making unscientific claims

FreeMaine

A drop of blood does not divide and grow on its own!

duxndrakes

Hill and Eves,…two useless dems.

shooter777

Everyone wants to fund multiple rehab trips to the addicts so why not pay for multiple abortions too! Might luck out and hit the daily double of an abortion followed up with a trip to rehab. After a 2 or 3 month stay the cycle starts again within a few weeks. Only place in the world where you cannot lose in a pregnancy…you want to abort, no problem it’s paid for. You want to keep the child? Again no problem, an extra $75 monthly on the EBT CARD

AmusedInMaine

“We should have done this years ago,” Heiden said of Tuesday’s lawsuit. “There are too many barriers for women of low income to get the care they need.”

chickadee_crow

I don’t think income/ to the specific foundation of this issue is a valid variable. “A Woman’s Right to Choose”….She’s not lost her choice and that’s what it’s all based on…..her body/her choice. Notice that unlike the Panhandler case, the ACLU is not relying on and acting from the knowledge of any “Individuals”? But is instead acting on the conflict-of-interest knowledge of the Providers? If the Providers feel it’s so important a “need” outside of rape, incest and Life threat, they should be providing the funding to cover their services to those who can’t afford it but are presumed by them to need their services. Pro bono, ever been forced to be excluded from that? Activist Judges…Big no-no, right? What about “Activist Providers” preying on the Public Dollar? That’s okay? The Law, as written, accommodates just as it should and just what it is suppose to, and after that “you’re on your own” or with private subsidy from your “chosen” Abortion Provider. Some Individual should, with the ACLU’s backing, be suing private Providers of the service for affordable access to the procedure, not suing the Government, when the Government has already done its part and taken on its legitimate share. (As usual, if it’s a DEM AGENDA item, it’s going to “backward”, right at the basis).